809 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Filament wrote...

No, it was both. If you choose to fight and lose, you don't die, but get sent to Fort Drakon. Different outcomes based on how you play.

Ah, really? I guess I never lost that fight. Huh. Well, then, there you go. Did the game "save" if you killed Cauthrien in the fight before you went down?

EDIT: And the choice with Owain resulted in a different ending slide, which is more than I can say for 99% of the choices in DA2. And, again, different conversation options/dialogue, which applies to the DA2 comment as well. The game reacted to it. Granted, nothing to that level happens with the Elven spy or the Dwarven merc (aside from not being able to talk to these characters in the future), but it still is an impact that can be seen. As opposed to combat always have the same, static outcome of "win/lose" with no nuance in-between. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 19 juillet 2013 - 07:49 .

[ScarMK]

Filament wrote...

No, it was both. If you choose to fight and lose, you don't die, but get sent to Fort Drakon. Different outcomes based on how you play.

If you skipped the Redcliffe battle they could just have Owain die, or live. It's the same thing.

...Wait a second, who is Owain? Lloyd?

Owain is the tranquil mage in the circle tower, Lloyd is the tavern owner in Redcliffe you can "persuade" to fight for the village.  But since you have to go out of your way to get him and can miss him, I'd say Murdock, the village mayor is a better candidate.

Modifié par ScarMK, 19 juillet 2013 - 07:49 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Ah, there it is, Lloyd. I started getting tripped up there after a bit.

And I'd argue Lloyd is more impactful, simply because recruiting him can result in a number of different outcomes for the inn that are discussed in game as well as in the ending slides. No other NPC in the Redcliffe fight has that level of reactivity to their dead/alive status.

[MerinTB]

Filament wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Filament wrote...
No, it was both. If you choose to fight and lose, you don't die, but get sent to Fort Drakon. Different outcomes based on how you play.

Ah, really? I guess I never lost that fight. Huh. Well, then, there you go. Did the game "save" if you killed Cauthrien in the fight before you went down?

Well, it's a very easy fight to lose. Pretty sure they designed it as such. I don't recall ever killing her and then losing, but I imagine she just gets back up like Zevran in that case.

Until my second play of DA:O I didn't even realize you COULD win that fight.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

Until my second play of DA:O I didn't even realize you COULD win that fight.

I'm very glad you could.  That's the sort of thing most games would just script in a cutscene, rather than letting us play it and change the outcome.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Until my second play of DA:O I didn't even realize you COULD win that fight.

I'm very glad you could.  That's the sort of thing most games would just script in a cutscene, rather than letting us play it and change the outcome.

No, it WAS awesome.  But inconsistent as it happens once.  That should have occured a few times in the game, where losing a story battle resulted in something other than reload.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Extra content for losing key fights is definitely something I wish would happen more often.

[MWImexico]

About blood magic and how it could be managed during a fight, we might assume that, for example, if a mage specialized in blood magic decides to skip a fight, the game automatically assumes that this mage used his blood magic during the fight.

Personally, I would have appreciated a specific quest in which the protagonist, if he's a mage, has the option (during a quick cutscene) to become a blood mage, or not.

For example, a group of friends / innocents are threatened by bandits / Templar / whatever, and the protagonist has a few seconds to decide whether he believes that to use blood magic is worth it. If the protagonist choses to use blood magic, enemies are pushed back for a few seconds which allows the innocents to run away. Else, they are killed (during a short cutscene) and the fight begins (fight that could possibly be skip). After the battle, if the mage refused to use blood magic but has healing/resurrection spells, it is still possible for him to save some of the people lying on the ground, but not all of them.

[EdgeSanity]

A huge part of the game is the combat. If you don't want to play the game, why do you... you know, play the game? Just read a synopsis of the story if you think the writers at Bioware are that great that you'd rather do that than read an actual book or watch a movie.

[Realmzmaster]

EdgeSanity wrote...

A huge part of the game is the combat. If you don't want to play the game, why do you... you know, play the game? Just read a synopsis of the story if you think the writers at Bioware are that great that you'd rather do that than read an actual book or watch a movie.

Maybe because the choices each individual make would not be the same for each protagonist he/she creates. Reading a synopsis does not allow that individual to roleplay the charcter by making those choices. Reading a book would be inadequate unless it was like Fighting Fantasy single player roleplaying gamebooks which allows the reader to advance the story by making choice many of which allow the reader to avoid combat.

Also the game is not just combat. Combat is only one facet of the game . Quite a few crpgs allow the gamer to complete the game without having to resort to combat. Planescape Torment comes to mind. It is considered to be the classic example of how to make a roleplaying game where the protagonist can complete the game with little or no combat. As I stated before Alpha Protocol and Deus Ex: Human Revolution also allow this type of game style.

The OP is simply asking for a way to speed up the combat. What if it is the players third time through the game and they only want to see what  a particular choice has in a relationship or part of the game . Why should he/she be required to play through all the combat.

The PC version already has the console command to kill all hostiles. The option ofm an autowin button simply extends that to the consoles.

The button would have zero effect on anybody else's single player game.

[xkg]

EdgeSanity wrote...

A huge part of the game is the combat. If you don't want to play the game, why do you... you know, play the game? Just read a synopsis of the story if you think the writers at Bioware are that great that you'd rather do that than read an actual book or watch a movie.

*facepalm* Another one of you guys ...

If you're not playing the combat you're not playing the game
no combat, no game
game=combat

Ok I'll answer:

"A huge part of the game is the combat." 
      Depends on POV, but let's take it for a fact. So ok, it is.

"If you don't want to play the bigger part of the game, why do you... you know, play the game?"
    fixed this second sentence ^
    The answer is - because I want to play the lesser parts of the game.

"Just read a synopsis of the story if you think the writers at Bioware are that great that you'd rather do that than read an actual book or watch a movie." 
   This doesn't make any sense to me in the context of your post, so I won't comment on that.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Jarvia (the dwarf carta boss in Orzammar) wanted to keep you alive for reasons most dire.

Uldred wanted to turn you into an abomination.

The Tevinters in the alienage wanted to make you a slave.

To name a few off the top of my head.

[Ieldra]

MerinTB wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Until my second play of DA:O I didn't even realize you COULD win that fight.

I'm very glad you could.  That's the sort of thing most games would just script in a cutscene, rather than letting us play it and change the outcome.

No, it WAS awesome.  But inconsistent as it happens once.  That should have occured a few times in the game, where losing a story battle resulted in something other than reload.

It's a resources thing again. You'll have significant content that won't be seen in any one playthrough. I think it is awesome and I do wish for more of that, but unless it's scripted as the Cauthrien fight - where you're intended to have one outcome and if you manage to get the other against all odds you'll actually lose content  - I can't see them do it often. One or two times per game, more I wouldn't expect.

[MerinTB]

EntropicAngel wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
No, it WAS awesome.  But inconsistent as it happens once.  That should have occured a few times in the game, where losing a story battle resulted in something other than reload.

How often were you fighting someone who wanted to kidnap you and not kill you, though? Most of the time they want to kill you (though I'm sure there are a couple more instances of them wanting to kidnap you).

Ostagar.  The fight at  the top of the tower, post lighting the signal, could have resumed.  And gotten increasingly difficult until, finally, something swoops down from the sky and you black out.  If you lose fighting before the swooping (Alistair already thinks this is bad) you would just wake up in Morrigan's bed as exists already.

Fighting guards in a city could result in you being arrested and fined.

Fighting against a foe who is fleeing from you could allow them to escape instead of just straight-up kill you.

----

It is a matter of priorities, I just personally think giving the game MORE reactivity than "death" and more of the concept that Dungeon World has for RP'ing (that "failure" should not equal either "can't do again", "just keep trying until you succeed", nor "you died, reload."  Failure should have interesting consequences, but don't you think games would be more fun if most of the time screwing up or failing didn't result in you reloading all the time?  What if playing, going forward, was still interesting and rewarding?

That's what losing that one fight and ending up in the Fort prison was.  Perfection.

[Magdalena11]

MerinTB wrote...

Filament wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Filament wrote...
No, it was both. If you choose to fight and lose, you don't die, but get sent to Fort Drakon. Different outcomes based on how you play.

Ah, really? I guess I never lost that fight. Huh. Well, then, there you go. Did the game "save" if you killed Cauthrien in the fight before you went down?

Well, it's a very easy fight to lose. Pretty sure they designed it as such. I don't recall ever killing her and then losing, but I imagine she just gets back up like Zevran in that case.

Until my second play of DA:O I didn't even realize you COULD win that fight.

You can kill Cauthrien, loot her for the Summer Sword and then lose the fight and wake up in Fort Drakon.  She does get back up and you can fight her again for a second Summer Sword at the Landsmeet.

[dekkerd]

EdgeSanity wrote...

A huge part of the game is the combat. If you don't want to play the game, why do you... you know, play the game? Just read a synopsis of the story if you think the writers at Bioware are that great that you'd rather do that than read an actual book or watch a movie.

try reading a few pages of this thread, you'll get the answer. Then again the core arguements were over by page three, but lets return to OT content discussion. 

[MerinTB]

EntropicAngel wrote...
I think you have good suggestions, but none of them actually happened in the game--as far as I recall (that Ogre is the only one at the top of the tower, you can't actually fight the guards in the cities, and when do foes flee from you?). Again, not saying they're bad ideas, but they're extra. They aren't places where DA failed to provide a similar amount of story/gameplay integration to the Fort Drakon area.

After you light the fire, you are hit by arrows and Darkspawn swarm the tower.  The game could have let you fight that battle to be rescued by Flemeth (like in DA2), but if you fell in that fight then you still wake up at Flemeth's hut later.

You do fight guards in the city, but they tend to be rescuing the queen or in the Fort - so we already have the Fort.

As for fleeing from you, the maleficar in the forest could run away if they beat you, and the trickster spirit isn't looking for a confrontation with you, those adventurers who are trying to deliver the message about apostates that you can fight to stop could beat you and get away to deliver the message.

The game wasn't written with fleeing enemies or city guards arresting you in mind, no, you are right in your point.  I'm saying that such things could ENHANCE the game overall.  For future games, obviously, not changing the existing ones.

[Realmzmaster]

MerinTB wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Until my second play of DA:O I didn't even realize you COULD win that fight.

I'm very glad you could.  That's the sort of thing most games would just script in a cutscene, rather than letting us play it and change the outcome.

No, it WAS awesome.  But inconsistent as it happens once.  That should have occured a few times in the game, where losing a story battle resulted in something other than reload.

The only problem that I had with this fight is that is seemed nonsensical (in a sense). The point was to save the queen. If you engage in a fight I thought there should be a chance that the queen could get kill in the melee and the warden gets blamed for the death. I could see that making it tougher for  the warden.

The same if you went to the Circle tower to aid Connor. There should have been a chance that the demon causes Connor to attack everyone again.

I feel that opportunties were missed. I do like tha fact there was more than one way to solve the situation and one choice lead to alternative content..

I would like to see more ways of resolving situations than just combat. I would like to see different playstyles catered. A gamer should be able to get through the game via, combat. stealth or social skills. If that is not the case then a way to speed up combat or skip it would be useful to some gamers.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 22 juillet 2013 - 02:08 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The only problem that I had with this fight is that is seemed nonsensical (in a sense). The point was to save the queen. If you engage in a fight I thought there should be a chance that the queen could get kill in the melee and the warden gets blamed for the death. I could that making it tougher for  the warden.

That's an obvious consequence of making non-combative characters invulnerable.  I'd love to see that feature go away.

[Wulfram]

Don't make a character killable in combat and leave them controlled by the AI. It's too annoying.

[Realmzmaster]

Wulfram wrote...

Don't make a character killable in combat and leave them controlled by the AI. It's too annoying.

 You can have the character added temporarily as another party member that you control. If that character dies in combat he/she is permanently dead.

Or the gamer can allow the AI to control the character.